undefined

points

[-]

Postgres's whole origin story is basically to think outside the box and don't be constrained by existing thinking. Stonebraker thought existing databases were too limited in terms of their data types and expressiveness. He started Postgres as an evolution of Ingres (Postgres = Post Ingres) that added rich custom data types and a rewriting system based on rules.

Columnar and all the other fun stuff (JSON, GIS, inverted indexes, embedding vectors) is a natural progression of that thinking. With TimescaleDB, Hydra, Citus, pg_mooncake, etc. becoming very popular the last few years, there is a clear demand for an integrated experience.

(Stonebraker also thought one database shouldn't do everything, as described in his early 2000s "One Size Does Not Fit All" paper, and Stonebraker branched out into HStore/Vertica for columnar. In hindsight, I think that was appropriate for the time, but no longer a significant concern.)

by masklinn2 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

> You might be using the wrong database if that’s what you’re hoping for. Columnar databases are a separate category.

I don't want a columnar database, I have a few tables which would be excellent fits for columnar storage. And the relational model doesn't say anything about the way data is stored.

by sega_sai3 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

PostgreSQL was a right tool for my task for many years. It is a question for PostgreSQL can adapt to a new reality of much bigger datasets or I have to switch to a new tool. And I am not the only user of Postgresql in this context. So it is easy to say in vacuum 'you are using the wrong database', but it's not something that can be easily changed with 100s of Tb of data, existing user workflows etc.

by switchbak2 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Columnar vs row based is a large architectural distinction. In theory it'd be great to support both, but this has also been an elusive and complex problem to solve. You're not going to see a simple "columnar type" on a row based system like this any time soon, that's trivializing the situation.

Andy Pavlo teaches about this and has done real work in this space, and certainly considers it to be non-trivial. His YouTube channel is spicy and worth looking into if you want to dive deep on the topic.

by kjs32 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

"Not something that can be easily changed" is not a valid rebuttal to "the tool no longer supports how the task I am working on has evolved over many years". This isn't 'saying in a vacuum'; 'has this tool ceased to be the right answer and how do I move to a better solution' is an exercise responsible app owners should engage in all the time. Shouldn't be different than things I presume your job touches on: if your research evolves to need to see in radio waves, do you complain the optical telescope you started with back in the day doesn't see radio waves and expect someone else to make that happen, or do you find a radio telescope?

You can either 1) accept the limits of the tool, at least until it becomes a priority for the tool developer to add whatever feature you want, 2) pay someone to develop the features you want, or 3) buck up and do what vast numbers of ops folks have done before you and move to something that does what you need.

by brookst3 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

Age old product question. The Honda Civic is much larger today than the original, because the original targeted young people on a budget. As they aged and had kids, they needed more room in the car. Most peoples’ insinct is to buy a newer version of the car they love, so the civic grew to accommodate the aging market.

No real point here other than an observation about how the installed base’s needs change, across industries.

by chucksmash3 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

Just because it's easy to say doesn't mean it's wrong.

By the same logic, you could say Microsoft Access should have all the capabilities of Postgres because it's painful for small businesses to move off of it when it's no longer a good fit for their needs.

by sega_sai2 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

The thing is that PG had introduced pluggable storage engines exactly for the reason I am talking about, and there have been few implementations of columnar storage using PG functionality, it's just they always stayed out of the tree. So I wasn't talking about some functionality that is completely out of scope.

But I agree in the end I may be forced to move elsewhere...

by SigmundA3 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

I don't agree, a relational database is not required to have a particular storage engine or format, that is an implementation detail.

There are other relational databases that have both kinds of storage engines and some use both on the same table (row based insert with column based migration and secondary column store indexes: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/sql/relational-databases/i...

Just like you can have b-tree based table storage vs heap in the case of index organized tables / clustered indexes (which pg doesn't have) you can choose column based instead the logical data model is still the same relational model.

by mickeyp3 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

I mean I don't disagree with you, but they did just add a graph database feature, which is about as orthogonal to relational database design as you can get.